sign in sign up
<<
Home , Eric Greitens, KCTV, KMOV

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Cause No. 1822-CR00642 v. ) ) Division No. 16 , ) ) Defendant. )

Motion for a Pre-Trial Conference on Cameras in Court and other Media Coverage Issues

Movant d/b/a KMOV-TV, St. Louis, and KCTV and KSMO,

Kansas City, by its undersigned attorneys, requests on behalf of itself and other media entities, including Company, d/b/a KTVI and KPLR-TV, St. Louis, and

WDAF-TV, City; Multimedia KSDK, LLC d/b/a KSDK-TV, St. Louis; Cable News

Network; E.W. Scripps d/b/a KSHB-TV and KMCI-TV, Kansas City; NBCUniversal Media,

LLC; Company d/b/a Springfield News-Leader; the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LLC; the , and Radio Television Digital News Association (collectively, including

Meredith, “Interested Media Parties”), that the court set a pre-trial conference to consider issues related to the pending request for cameras in court, and other media news coverage issues.

In support Meredith states:

1. Interested Media Parties are news media companies that plan to cover the trial of this case, because of its significance and interest to the public, and Radio Television

Digital News Association (RTDNA), the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to broadcast and digital journalism. 2. The Media Coordinator for the 22nd Circuit has made an application for camera coverage of the trial under Operating Rule 16. Interested Media Parties support the

Media Coordinator’s request for a conference with the Court on this application, and on related logistical issues relating to news reporting and how any photographic and/or audio coverage of the case would be handled.

3. As more fully explained in a letter from Media Coordinator Bill McCormac and KMOV-TV News Director Scott Diener to the court, a copy of which is attached as

Exhibit A, Interested Media Parties recognize that any camera or audio coverage would be subject to the limitations of Operating Rule 16, including, for example, the ability of the victim to opt out of any photographic or audio coverage of her testimony. See Operating

Rule 16.03(c). They also recognize that any photographic and/or audio coverage will need to be managed so that it is not disruptive to the trial.

4. For these reasons, Interested Media Parties seek a conference with the Court

to discuss the request for camera and audio coverage, and ways in which it can be managed to address the various interests of the Court, the parties, and the public. They can discuss and demonstrate, for example, ways that cameras and audio equipment can be made unobtrusive, limitations that can be made on particular kinds of activities, and management of media coverage in ways that are least disruptive to the courtroom, while meeting the media’s need for accessing and reporting information about the case. In other high-profile cases, protocols have been established and successfully implemented regarding the number of cameras, the use of audio, whether any transmission is live or delayed, and limitations on what may (and may not) be recorded.

- 2 - 5. As one example, in some high-profile cases, with cooperative advance

planning, media coverage of high-profile trials has used a media room separate from the

courtroom, thus reducing potentially disruptive activity in the courtroom and allowing media representatives more freedom to do timely news reporting. Such a media room can utilize pool camera and audio feeds from the courtroom. Similarly, other media coverage issues can be discussed and worked out in advance in a pre-trial conference on media coverage.

6. Such pre-trial conferences with the media on issues of camera and audio coverage, and the management of media coverage, have been successfully used in other

Missouri cases, because they allow a full exchange of information and ideas, and address logistical issues regarding trial news coverage in advance.

7. To the extent it is necessary for purposes of this motion, Meredith seeks leave for itself and the Interested Media Parties to intervene in this action to raise the issues in this motion. Intervention is the typical and proper procedure for a media organization’s request for access to judicial proceedings or materials. This procedure was followed, and permitted, in Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Transit Casualty Co. (In re Transit Cas.

Co.), 43 S.W.2d 293 (Mo. banc 2001), where the Supreme Court allowed a media company’s request for access to documents from in a legal proceeding. See also ABC, Inc. v. Stewart,

360 F.3d 90, 97 (2d Cir. 2004) (media coalition permitted to intervene in criminal case for purposes of access requests); v. Moussaoui, 65 Fed.Appx. 881 (4th Cir. 2003)

(members of media intervened in criminal case for limited purpose of obtaining access to certain portions of the record and oral argument on appeal); United States v. Chang, 47

Fed.Appx. 119 (3d Cir. 2002) (media organizations and U.S. Senator intervened in criminal

- 3 - action for purpose of seeking access to judicial records); In re Newark Morning Ledger Co.,

260 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2001) (media organization intervened in criminal case for purpose of motion to unseal records); Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye, 256 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001)

(recognizing media intervention as the proper procedure with respect to media requests for access to court proceedings). In the prior motion for notice of hearings in this matter,

the motion of Meredith and other media parties to intervene was not opposed by the

parties.

WHEREFORE, Meredith, on behalf of the Interested Media Parties, requests that the

Court schedule a pre-trial conference with the Media Coordinator, Interested Media Parties, and other interested parties, concerning the pending cameras in court request and other logistical issues regarding news media coverage.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON COBURN LLP

By ___/s/ Mark Sableman______Mark Sableman, MO-36276 Michael L. Nepple, MO-42082 One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-552-6000 FAX 314-552-7000 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Meredith Corporation

THE MANEKE LAW GROUP, L.C.

By _/s/ Jean Maneke______Jean Maneke MO-28946 2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 1600 Kansas City, MO 64112

- 4 - (816) 753-9000 FAX (816) 753-9009 [email protected]

Attorneys for The Associated Press

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2018, the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all counsel of record.

Mark Sableman

- 5 -